About Darwin & Evolution...

So what does that mean for our society today? How are we a product of our current environment, and what intellectual currents that we accept as obvious will later seem stupid?

Society is different because we help each other and we can change our environment to better our odds of survival. Many people who wouldn't have survived in nature have survived and their line goes on.

Good point.

Interesting topic.

This article is assuming that Darwin was right.

He is.

Well, mostly right. He was right about the fundamentals, but some of the details are a bit sketchy. ;-)

I think that in Darwin's time, ideas about physical evolution and the evolution of social ideas and trends were treated as separate affairs.

After all, Lamarck's ideas about evolution (e.g. giraffes have long necks because their ancestors tried very hard to stretch themselves) seemed more applicable to social evolution than Darwin's. It wasn't until a good deal of time after Darwin that "social Darwinism" caught on as a buzzword.

I think there's definitely a sense of similarity between physical evolution and social evolution, but there are also quite distinct differences as well. I doubt Darwin's theory of evolution was inordinately influenced by his observations of social evolution.

Did Darwin's social environment, which ultimately reflected the natural environment in regards to the presence of selectors and the survival of the fittest, help him to realise his theory?

That's not "Darwin's social envionment", that's the eternal social dynamic of man. Additionally, the concepts of "social darwinism" came much earlier. Look up the writings of Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton.

and a "scientist" named Darwin who came up with a theory (bolded because many people assume he etched it in stone as well) and then spent then next 20 years of his life trying to find some support for it (which, he never did).

Ah yes, he never found evidence for the theory of natural selection. That's why Origin of Species is the size of a travel brochure, right?

Also, you may wish to learn a modicum of history: Darwin sat on his work for 23 years because he was afraid of the religious backlash, because he himself was so devout he almost became a priest. Work on better masking your flagrant bulls---.

It's like a religious clash, two equally pious skeptical teams clinging for dear life to their own extreme and never giving ground

Except that many evolutionary scientists are Christians, and find no contradiction with the Bible. If you want to see who invented the supposed clash, you'd find the culprit in the same place you'd find those who tried to hang Galileo, and condemned Copernicus, for their evidentiarily supported theories of the heavens: the religious fundamentalists.

Nice try conflating science with religion, though. You'd do well on early-morning talk radio.

As for exploring "where did we come from?", evolution is only part of the science's current set of partial, possible answers, a fact you would not so boldly ignore if only you were better educated in that which you presume to condemn.

For now, abiogenesis comprises another facet of that possible answer, but science is always looking to refine its models, its theories, its ideas.

Judging by your tone, I'll presume you've chosen your side of the dialectic and your faith:

Nice try conflating science with religion, though. You'd do well on early-morning talk radio.

As for exploring "where did we come from?", evolution is only part of the science's current set of partial, possible answers, a fact you would not so boldly ignore if only you were better educated in that which you presume to condemn.

The thickness of a book determines it's validity?

That's why Origin of Species is the size of a travel brochure, right?

That's like saying those who talk for the longest amount of time have the most to say.

Empirical evidence discredits the aboe statement and empirical evidence discredits most tenets of Darwin's theory. Legions of "howler monkeys" (they're choice of name) try to paint anyone who questions it as a foot-washing fundamentalist.

I remain neutral on the issue and refuse to make the leap of faith both sides require..

The thickness of a book determines it's validity?

So you'd like to appear thick. Okay, I'll play that game. The Origin of Species presents a good deal of supporting observational evidence within its pages -- perhaps you've heard that Darwin went to the Galapagos for a little vacation?

Legions of "howler monkeys" (they're choice of name) try to paint anyone who questions it as a foot-washing fundamentalist.

"It" being Darwin's theory? The modern theory of evolution is different from Darwin's theory, but the basic tenets have stayed the same. Simply saying "oh, it's not perfect, and has been improved" doesn't mean your indictments of it weren't outright lies.

Where are these legions? Perhaps you know where the local chapter meets?

I remain neutral on the issue and refuse to make the leap of faith both sides require..

There are more than the two sides you presume to define. One who is obviously familiar enough with the matter to know of these "howler monkeys" should know this.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

I think he probably could've been unconsciously influenced by social interactions before formally laying out his theory based on observational wildlife evidence. However, I don't think that's too closely linked with the concept of "social Darwinism," which arose quite a bit later.

I'll take exception to Darwin being a "given."

And Jack, personal attacks disguised as innuendos don't help your case.

To date, not one finger-bone or so much a footprint of the all-important supporting "Missing Link" has been found, nor so much from any of the 20 to 30 gradual generations required to link any of the bipedal skeleton models we have. Yet, all the howlers cling to the idea that "one day" it will be discovered.

How's waiting for this "miracle" find make one any better, or smarter, than those sitting around praying waiting for some Messiah or Rapture to come. It's called "faith" and should be relegated outside the realm of "science."

Advances in the field of genetics, particularly DNA sequencing, have only further discredited Darwin, yet many of us, be it from fear, or sentimentality, do cling so tightly to the cute little models and charts we were taught as kids.

And Jack, personal attacks disguised as innuendos don't help your case.

Ignorance doesn't help yours.

To date, not one finger-bone or so much a footprint of the all-important supporting "Missing Link" has been found, nor so much from any of the 20 to 30 gradual generations required to link any of the bipedal skeleton models we have. Yet, all the howlers cling to the idea that "one day" it will be discovered.

The date being 1925?

You need some catching up to do, both with regards to current fossil evidence and with regards to the basics of evolutionary theory if you want to play with the grownups.

Hint: there is no single all-important "missing link" fossil to be found. Like you said, evolution is gradual (you know, as in lots of links). And "20 or 30 gradual generations"? Do a bit of math, and revise that whimsical figure. Hominid evolution is measured in increments of at least tens of thousands of years, so unless all hominids were Abraham, well, you do the math.

Advances in the field of genetics, particularly DNA sequencing, have only further discredited Darwin, yet many of us, be it from fear, or sentimentality, do cling so tightly to the cute little models and charts we were taught as kids.

Oh? Explain, if you can.

jcat, sorry to get side-tracked by the "howler monkey" in the room, i don't disagree with those tenets subscribing to the natural processes and egocentric aspects we all wish to pass and preserve through natural means. I think then, we should probably be talking about Herbert Spencer, though there's valid argument whether he dictated Darwin's thoughts on the subject to him or had them stolen by Charles.

To answer then, Darwin's The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life shows an eltist and racist philosophy applied to this passing-down, and per my issue, then makes some strong unsupported leaps to create a unified theory on life itself.

As for you Huang, you continue to show your core skills lie in the absorption and regurgitation of trivia, I think I'd receive more critical thought from goats or geese, but then ... what would be the point of discussing the origins of life with them?

I guess you can't explain, then, preferring to relegate evidentiary support to "absorption and regurgitation of trivia."

Let me know when you figure out the difference between critical thought and idle sophistry.

You know what I find amazing... tell me if this is closer to what you are trying to say.

Experience proves that the moral and physical qualities of man, whether good or evil, are transmissible in a certain degree from father to son." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813.

Lets see... Darwin wasn't born until 1803....

"I believe... that [justice] is instinct and innate, that the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing; as a wise Creator must have seen to be necessary in an animal destined to live in society." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816.

I have to conclude that Jefferson was a genius.

Social Darwinism has been discredited for years. It's the false notion that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Total nonsense. It was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, racism and was used by Hitler as the bases of his ant-Semitic believes and to discourage intervention and reform. It has nothing to do with Darwin's theories, other then the bastardization of the name Darwin by Spencer.

Right! I agree, didn't you realize that? What you write is correct. All that I said was read this article I felt it was worth while to read since it would explain many things that were said by the individuals that had made comments concerning this subject matter.

Did you read the article? if you did what are your thoughts concerning it?

You post in a thread that you are answering to, not in a separate thread, or it is considered a stand-alone statement! didn't you realize that?

As for the article, I have other post here.

I'm rather new at this Newsvine thing. No I didn't know. What does that have to do with thoughts and opinions and good conversation?

I have no idea what you mean by a "stand-alone statement." Would you be kind enough to explain that to me. I find Newsvine interesting and enjoyable, and would like to play by the rules. However, what I'm interested in is speaking to open minded individuals. They do not have to agree with me. You never know I might learn something or perhaps they could as well.

What does that have to do with thoughts and opinions and good conversation?

Coherence.

JCATom:

You said it in your first statement to me: "So Ira, Tell me what you think ..." You seem to be interested in what someone else thinks. Why this is I don't know. I hope it is more than just because you like to play with words and or the minds of other individuals. I believe it is more. Before I started to answer your So Ira, Tell me what you think question I clicked on your icon and could neither find a picture or any sort of profile pertaining to you. That's your right although I am much more comfortable when conversing with another individual having the opportunity to look them in the eye. This can not be done within the confines of a discussion which takes place using the Internet. So with this limiting factor I do like the idea of at least seeing a picture and reading even a short profile of the individual that I'm "speaking" with. I guess that's the reason that I have only used a cell phone that I received as a gift some four years ago once. At present most people find it easier not to look another individual in the eye when speaking to them.

So my new friend, and I hope you are one. If we agree or not. With the above testimony stated which you didn't ask for in the first place I will go on. From a social point of view I don't agree with Spencer concerning his Social Darwinism or his ideology at all. Neither do I believe in the "Atom Dream" that "Man" is in essence evil, stupid, or any of the negative qualities given to him by the Hebrew or Christian religions. As far as where Darwin got his ideas from I have no idea, and really don't care. I don't say this out of meanness or meaning to provoke any one with my statement. Neither do I much care if Washington had wooden teeth or not. I do care and I am interested in what Darwin or Washington has given to this world of ours.

I can't prove it but with my limited understanding I do believe that we as a race of "Man" can inherit besides physical qualities qualities such as memory and intellect. This is far from passing on what is termed moral qualities. To the best of my present understanding no "Man" is evil or less than another man. He/she is just different. The culture of the time frame that he/she is born into may see him/her as better or worse. What "Man" does with what he is given at birth makes him who he becomes. This is far from Social Darwinism.

As far as the statement concerning a "wise Creator" how could a Creator of the Cosmos be anything but Wise and Perfect and create anything that was not based on Laws that were less than perfect. The four basic Laws of the Known Universe have to be Perfect or the Cosmos itself could not exist. ie gravity may be strong or weak yet gravity is no less than perfect. I could go on how with my limited understanding that I reach this conclusion but that would be more than you ask for at this time.

Think of Hitler.